Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition
Proview on Monday announced that it has amended its California lawsuit against Apple over its use of the "iPad" moniker, accusing the company of multiple instances of fraud and unfair competition.
Though based in China, Proview announced its amended lawsuit in a press release issued Monday by New York-based public relations firm Powell Tate. Allegations lodged in the U.S. complaint against Apple include fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, fraudulent inducement, and unfair competition.
"The complaint provides evidence that the December 23, 2009 agreement that Proview Taiwan entered into was fraudulently induced by the concealment and suppression of material facts by Apple's agents, and that, as a result, the 2009 agreement is void," the press release states. "Once the agreement is voided for fraud, the iPad trademarks in the European Union, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam will revert back to Proview Taiwan."
The U.S. complaint alleges that Apple was "pressed for time" when it negotiated to buy the necessary trademarks for the "IPAD" name owned by Proview. It also states that Apple was "predisposed to deception" in dealing with Proview because Apple knew that Proview opposed its use of "similar trademarks."
"To further this deception, Apple used an intermediary, Farncombe International and its Managing Director, Graham Robinson, to create an elaborate but false pretext for the purchase of Proview's IPAD trademarks," the statement reads. "Apple created a special purpose company named IP Application Development Limited ("IPAD Ltd."), then concealed the fact that this company was acting as an agent of Apple.
"Graham Robinson further concealed Apple's involvement by adopting a false alias, Jonathan Hargreaves, which he used when negotiating with Proview."
The complaint also alleges that Robinson and Apple intentionally misled Proview regarding the "IPAD Ltd." business and its intended use of the trademark. Robinson allegedly said that IPAD Ltd. sought the trademark because "IPAD" is an abbreviation for IP Application Development Limited.
Robinson is also accused of evading questions from Proview as to the nature of IPAD Ltd.'s business, only offering that it was "a newly formed company."
"I'm sure you can understand that we are not ready to publicize what the company's business is, since we have not yet made any public announcements," Robinson is alleged to have said. "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview."
Earlier Monday, a report from Reuters quoted experts who said Apple's secretive tactics could be a disadvantage for the company when defending itself from Proview's complaints. New Yorkbased trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."
But other experts believe Apple could counter Proview's claims by arguing that the Chinese trademark holder cannot sue Apple directly. They believe that the court could find that Proview can only file suit against IPAD Ltd., Apple's special purpose corporation which actually bought the trademarks.
Proview's latest action is an amendment to the complaint it originally filed against Apple in a California court on Feb. 17. The company seeks to bar sales of Apple's iPad touchscreen tablet.
Apple has countered that it legally bought the rights to the iPad name, and Proview is not honoring its end of the deal. Last week, a Shanghai court sided with Apple and has allowed sales of the iPad to continue in that city.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.
Proview: We were so stupid not to ask follow-up questions when we did not get the answers we wanted from the original inquiry. Please Court, help us correct our stupid mistakes after-the-fact.
It was an elaborate hoax on Apples part.
Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.
Well of course it was. They didn't want to be taken to the cleaners over the price of the trademark. Everyone does it and it's perfectly legal.
New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."
Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.
Mr. Scwhimmer is going to be the laughing stock of the entire intellectual property arena. This practice is very common and happens all the time. I've done it myself - on a much, much smaller scale.
Proview didn't bother to do any research on the company that approached them given that they didn't see the countless rumors that the company might be a front for Apple.
Proview didn't do jack about this 'false' sale when the product was announced two years ago. Neither did the banks.
Proview hadn't had a product on any market that used the mark and thus could have lost ownership on that basis if Apple had wanted to press it. And given that they were in bankruptcy they wouldn't have had the funds to really fight that contention.
I fail to see what interest Proview has in the trademark, when all right, title and interest has been sold.
Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it. So the sale should be voided as unfair so they can demand more money.
I say let them have it. And Apple simply refuse to change the product name and thus refuse to sell in those areas. and when the various countries refuse to block smugglers from bringing in the product to sell themselves, sue etc
Oh and move all iPad production out of China. Foxconn does have factories in Brazil etc. Let them have the iPad.
What is Apple's?or any company in similar circumstances?obligation to tell what they really intend to do with a trademark. Obviously the TM was of no further use to Proview. It's apparent they just want more money now they know what they freely sold is used for.
Proview could have written the contract to say that the buyer wasn't allowed to use the trademark to compete against them. But, they didn't write the contract that way. If that had been their concern they should have had better lawyers/contract writers before the sale rather than now.
The reality is there is no real value in the iPad name if it wasn't for the success of Apple's hard work in developing a great product. Proview had no hand in that, they just want a quick and easy pay-day ? just like they did when they attempted to copy the original iMac and failed.
At the end of the day Proview is crying because they didn't get to gauge Apple in their original negotiation, so they want to after the fact.
I wouldn't want everyone looking at my income before deciding what to charge me. That's crazy talk.
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.
So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.
Sounds like desperation. It seems to me like they know their case is weak in China and are coming out with all guns blazing, hoping they'll hit something. The fact that they're trying to invalidate the previous "purchase" of the trademark is like validation in and of itself.
Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it. So the sale should be voided as unfair so they can demand more money.
I say let them have it. And Apple simply refuse to change the product name and thus refuse to sell in those areas. and when the various countries refuse to block smugglers from bringing in the product to sell themselves, sue etc
Oh and move all iPad production out of China. Foxconn does have factories in Brazil etc. Let them have the iPad.
there is very liberal use of the term "fraud" in this thread. Proview is butthurt because they need money and sold their claim on 'ipad' for cheaper than they could have gotten had they known Apple was on the recieving end. As has been said, there is nothing illegal about what Apple did. And other companies do this sort of thing all the time. Proview did not do its homework and got took to the cleaners. Deal is done. Sorry Proview, you lose.
Cry me a river. Go back to China and wine their.
But in only in moderation, and don't operate heavy equipment.
Sounds like desperation. It seems to me like they know their case is weak in China and are coming out with all guns blazing, hoping they'll hit something. The fact that they're trying to invalidate the previous "purchase" of the trademark is like validation in and of itself.
I know. they insist it was never sold, yet are trying to invalidate the sale. LOL. they are so desperate you can smell it.